Hi
I asked a photographer for permission to use pictures on Commons. I filled out the email permission template with the CC-by 3.0 license after having read this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
"A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it"
After recieving the license I see that CC by 3.0 is not allowed on Commons. Can anyone explain this? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-3.0
I feel now very stupid to ask the photographer again for another permission in 2.5.
I strongly suggest either to accept CC by 3.0 or to ask to remove this misleading text we link to in hundred thousands of images.
Help appreciated.
Regards
Robin
On 7/13/07, Robin Schwab contact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
Hi
I asked a photographer for permission to use pictures on Commons. I filled out the email permission template with the CC-by 3.0 license after having read this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
"A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it"
After recieving the license I see that CC by 3.0 is not allowed on Commons. Can anyone explain this? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-3.0
I feel now very stupid to ask the photographer again for another permission in 2.5.
I strongly suggest either to accept CC by 3.0 or to ask to remove this misleading text we link to in hundred thousands of images.
Help appreciated.
We have no control over what Creative commons put up in their webspace. We currently regard the CC 3.0 series of licences as non free because of the way they handle moral rights. Obviously Creative commons dissagree.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:18:46 +0300, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We have no control over what Creative commons put up in their webspace. We currently regard the CC 3.0 series of licences as non free because of the way they handle moral rights. Obviously Creative commons dissagree.
Not "we". Some of us regard the licence as non free. I'm not one of those who oppose to using this new, more truthful license.
For more discussion, please see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Creative_Commons_3....
On Jul 13, 2007, at 1:18 AM, geni wrote:
We have no control over what Creative commons put up in their webspace. We currently regard the CC 3.0 series of licences as non free because of the way they handle moral rights. Obviously Creative commons dissagree.
It is more accurate to say that "some people regard CC 3.0 licenses as non free".
In my opinion, people think that only because they do not understand the moral rights issues.
Please don't use the royal we to refer to your own opinions. :)
--Jimbo
Yes. As the chairman of CC I would disagree that 3.0 is non-free. ;-)
On Jul 14, 2007, at 1:33 JST, Jimmy Wales wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 1:18 AM, geni wrote:
We have no control over what Creative commons put up in their webspace. We currently regard the CC 3.0 series of licences as non free because of the way they handle moral rights. Obviously Creative commons dissagree.
It is more accurate to say that "some people regard CC 3.0 licenses as non free".
In my opinion, people think that only because they do not understand the moral rights issues.
Please don't use the royal we to refer to your own opinions. :)
--Jimbo
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On 14/07/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
Yes. As the chairman of CC I would disagree that 3.0 is non-free. ;-)
The problem is that the plain text of some versions of the licence reads very like a violation of the required "for any purpose" - it seems to make moral rights required by law anyway into terms of usage that would apply in countries not using such moral rights.
Perhaps there's a legal sleight of hand that can be applied so this can be neutralised, but the text is certainly not clear on this. I would strongly suggest a clarified version.
- d.
On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
Yes. As the chairman of CC I would disagree that 3.0 is non-free. ;-)
It places limits on how the work can be used.
Implementation also tends to go further than the law. For example from the UK: English and welsh version:
subject the Work to any derogatory treatment as defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
If we look at the relevant section we see:
(4) The right does not apply in relation to the publication in—
(b) an encyclopaedia, dictionary, yearbook or other collective work of reference,
I would also tend to argue that there should have been further exploration into section 87
Additionally by moving beyond core copyright matters you create further problems for example:
"publish, distribute, archive, perform or otherwise disseminate the Work or the Work as incorporated in any Collective Work, to the public in any material form in any media whether now known or hereafter created."
Would appear to have issues with the The Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2006 (mind you anyone managing to trigger that would be impressive short of hyperinflation in the eurozone).
On 7/13/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
Yes. As the chairman of CC I would disagree that 3.0 is non-free. ;-)
It does seem very clear from the text that it requires what we're referring to as moral rights. I am not a lawyer but even the unported version,
"Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."
Sounds a little weird to me. I actually had my blog using creative commons since 1.0 but took it off because I don't want to limit people like this. I know some people say it's not real or it's not limiting but I haven't heard a good explanation. Why isn't it? Is "may be otherwise permitted by applicable law" a magic phrase that says some people can disregard the whole sentence? Geni isn't alone in this, it's obviously the consensus view on commons right now, but even outside wikipedia it is an issue that I think the creative commons should help clear up for us all, please! :D
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones.
http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/07/13/ my_picture_of_pierre_in_businessweek.html
I guess I better move my en.wikipedia images over to the commons. I tried using the tool to do that, but it gave me an error. What's the best way to migrate images from en.wikipedia?
- Joi
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On 14/07/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
I guess I better move my en.wikipedia images over to the commons. I tried using the tool to do that, but it gave me an error. What's the best way to migrate images from en.wikipedia?
By hand, I fear ... also, please excuse how much the interface sucks.
- d.
On 7/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
I guess I better move my en.wikipedia images over to the commons. I tried using the tool to do that, but it gave me an error. What's the best way to migrate images from en.wikipedia?
By hand, I fear ... also, please excuse how much the interface sucks.
Which tool? CommonsHelper? http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php It's the best tool for moving from wikipedias, but it was working last time I checked :(
Ah it worked. Thanks. Was giving me some error before.
On Jul 14, 2007, at 9:52 JST, Ayelie wrote:
On 7/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: On 14/07/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
I guess I better move my en.wikipedia images over to the commons. I tried using the tool to do that, but it gave me an error. What's the best way to migrate images from en.wikipedia?
By hand, I fear ... also, please excuse how much the interface sucks.
Which tool? CommonsHelper? http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/ commonshelper.php It's the best tool for moving from wikipedias, but it was working last time I checked :(
-- Ayelie ~Editor at Large _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On 7/13/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones.
http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/07/13/ my_picture_of_pierre_in_businessweek.html
I guess I better move my en.wikipedia images over to the commons.
It will still look the same from the article page, so I don't know if people will be less likely to steal the images :(
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 14/07/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones.
http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/07/13/ my_picture_of_pierre_in_businessweek.html
Lame! Are you going to contact them to complain? Send them a formal copyright infringement letter!
cheers Brianna
On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones.
The best thing to do in this case is send them an email stating they 'forgot" to credit you. Tell them it's simple and that would avoid any procedure in which they would be forced to remove the image. They usually comply.
I sent them a nice letter yesterday. I'll let you know how it turns out.
On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:16 JST, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote: FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones.
The best thing to do in this case is send them an email stating they 'forgot" to credit you. Tell them it's simple and that would avoid any procedure in which they would be forced to remove the image. They usually comply.
-- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
It worked. I see the credit for your name there now. Congratulations!
On 7/15/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
I sent them a nice letter yesterday. I'll let you know how it turns out.
On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:16 JST, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote: FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones.
The best thing to do in this case is send them an email stating they 'forgot" to credit you. Tell them it's simple and that would avoid any procedure in which they would be forced to remove the image. They usually comply.
-- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
They were even apologetic in the email I got back. ;-)
On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:22 GMT+02:00, Howard Cheng wrote:
It worked. I see the credit for your name there now. Congratulations!
On 7/15/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote: I sent them a nice letter yesterday. I'll let you know how it turns out.
On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:16 JST, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote: FYI, I just blogged this, but BusinessWeek just used my photo of Pierre Omidyar without attribution even though they are giving attribution on the Getty Images ones.
The best thing to do in this case is send them an email stating they 'forgot" to credit you. Tell them it's simple and that would avoid any procedure in which they would be forced to remove the image. They usually comply.
-- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On 7/13/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is more accurate to say that "some people regard CC 3.0 licenses as non free".
In my opinion, people think that only because they do not understand the moral rights issues.
Which ones? US, French, Korean (although I think their copyright system may be reformed shortly) or English and Welsh?
No yet had much reason to look at those in other legal systems.
Please don't use the royal we to refer to your own opinions. :)
We in this case is the positon commons has taken
On 14/07/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Please don't use the royal we to refer to your own opinions. :)
We in this case is the positon commons has taken
No it's not. Commons doesn't approve every acceptable license in the world, only the ones that come across our desk. This one's controversial. Just because Commons hasn't accepted it yet doesn't mean we never will.
I think we should -- or else CC should release a 3.1 that the naysayers will find acceptable -- because it's going to cause increasing problems for Commons as the CC 3.0 licenses become more widely adopted.
regards Brianna
On 7/14/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
No it's not. Commons doesn't approve every acceptable license in the world, only the ones that come across our desk. This one's controversial. Just because Commons hasn't accepted it yet doesn't mean we never will.
It's non free. I fails to see why there should be any change of position.
I think we should -- or else CC should release a 3.1 that the naysayers will find acceptable -- because it's going to cause increasing problems for Commons as the CC 3.0 licenses become more widely adopted.
Minor problem compared to how widely NC and ND licenses are adopted.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:19:36 +0300, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
No it's not. Commons doesn't approve every acceptable license in the world, only the ones that come across our desk. This one's controversial. Just because Commons hasn't accepted it yet doesn't mean we never will.
It's non free. I fails to see why there should be any change of position.
The world is not "free". Moral rights exist and make a large part of Commons files unfree - whether we accept it or not. I think we should accept it.
BTW, why is it that requiring attribution (an inelianable moral right) is considered free while requiring other inalienable moral rights is unfree? Should we not abandon CC-BY licences alltoghetr? (Not to mention copyleft/share alike licenses where the author refuses to release a substantial part of his economic rights.)
On 7/14/07, Samuli Lintula samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
The world is not "free". Moral rights exist and make a large part of Commons files unfree - whether we accept it or not. I think we should accept it.
Under UK law it is posible to waive those rights.
BTW, why is it that requiring attribution (an inelianable moral right) is considered free while requiring other inalienable moral rights is unfree?
Because it doesn't really place restictions on what you can do with the work
Maybe under UK law it is possible to waive moral rights, but under Dutch law it isn't.
The restrictions those inalienable moral rights place on what you can do with the work aren't any different from the restrictions Dutch (and other countries) laws place on the use of the work. If those restrictions are the reason to not accept 3.0, than we shouldn't accept any "free" pictures from the Netherlands (and other countries), since the moral rights connected to these "free" pictures can never be waived. Unless Dutch copyright law undergoes some very drastic changes (which are not forseen in the nearby future) for Dutch pictures 3.0 is the same as 2.5. For pictures under 2.5the Dutch law says that moral rights can't we waived, for 3.0 the Dutch law and the license say the moral rights can't be waived. The result is the same; a 3.0 Dutch picture is not more unfree than a 2.5 Dutch picture.
-Fruggo
On 7/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Samuli Lintula samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
The world is not "free". Moral rights exist and make a large part of Commons files unfree - whether we accept it or not. I think we should accept it.
Under UK law it is posible to waive those rights.
BTW, why is it that requiring attribution (an inelianable moral right)
is
considered free while requiring other inalienable moral rights is
unfree?
Because it doesn't really place restictions on what you can do with the work
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 7/14/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
The result is the same; a 3.0 Dutch picture is not more unfree than a 2.5 Dutch picture.
-Fruggo
Unless you move the image to the US.
How will moving the image help? When Dutch law applies to the picture, moving the image won't change that; at most Dutch and US law will be applicable.
-Fruggo
On 7/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
The result is the same; a 3.0 Dutch picture is not more unfree than a 2.5 Dutch picture.
-Fruggo
Unless you move the image to the US.
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Licensing/Creative_Co... is the start of a summary of the problems with the CC 3.0. Can somebody try to finish it, such that people like me, who do not know law in detail, understand what the problems are?
Bryan
On 7/14/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
How will moving the image help? When Dutch law applies to the picture, moving the image won't change that; at most Dutch and US law will be applicable.
How were you planning on enforceing Dutch law in the US?
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, geni wrote:
On 7/14/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
How will moving the image help? When Dutch law applies to the picture, moving the image won't change that; at most Dutch and US law will be applicable.
How were you planning on enforceing Dutch law in the US?
With the way copyrights are dealt with on Commons it is always implied that for a picture to be useable as public domain it must be in the public domain under the laws of the country of origin AND the United States (where the servers are). Where pictures are PD in the USA but not PD in the country of origin they are NOT PD for the purposes of Wikimedia.
According to this then, pictures (and other work) with other licenses must be usable by Wikimedia in the USA AND the country of origin.
Is that a relevant question? We're talking about the applicable law, not if it can be enforced. Whether it can or cannot be enforced in country X shouldn't be decisive to the decision to do or do not break the law.
-Fruggo
On 7/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
How will moving the image help? When Dutch law applies to the picture, moving the image won't change that; at most Dutch and US law will be applicable.
How were you planning on enforceing Dutch law in the US?
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 14/07/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
Is that a relevant question? We're talking about the applicable law, not if it can be enforced. Whether it can or cannot be enforced in country X shouldn't be decisive to the decision to do or do not break the law.
Geni has a tendency to go off on apparently querulous tangents; please don't feel obligated to follow.
The problem with the CC 3.0 licences is that they add moral rights restrictions that read as though they're applicable in countries which don't have said restrictions in law. This is a usage restriction, hence not a free licence.
In addition, what if the moral rights legislation in the countries in question were to be weakened? This would mean the licence was specifying restrictions that were not in the law of the country the licence variant was supposedly tweaked toward.
The "for any purpose" of a free licence necessarily implies "for any legal purpose", which means a CC 2.5 licence would not somehow mean one was free of legal obligations regarding moral rights.
- d.
On 7/14/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
Is that a relevant question? We're talking about the applicable law, not if it can be enforced. Whether it can or cannot be enforced in country X shouldn't be decisive to the decision to do or do not break the law.
This would put you into a position of haveing to consider over 200 legal systems something I admit I am not prepared to do.
On 14/07/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe under UK law it is possible to waive moral rights, but under Dutch law it isn't. The restrictions those inalienable moral rights place on what you can do with the work aren't any different from the restrictions Dutch (and other countries) laws place on the use of the work.
However, the wording of the licenses appears to place usage restrictions upon the works in countries where those laws do not apply.
If this is not the case, I eagerly await Joichi's clarification and explanation, as noted.
If those restrictions are the reason to not accept 3.0, than we shouldn't accept any "free" pictures from the Netherlands (and other countries), since the moral rights connected to these "free" pictures can never be waived.
You may think you're presenting that as a reductio ad absurdum, but this is actually a serious possibility.
- d.
I do realise the notion of rejecting Dutch pictures seems absurd but might be too realistic (so, no, I didn't mean it as a reductio ad absurdum, well, at least for 90% I didn't). And the most scary thing is that it doesn't just apply to pictures: if we consider 3.0 to be unfree, that means that Dutch copyright law is unfree and incompatible with free licenses, what doesn't just mean that Dutch pictures are unfree but also Dutch texts, which means that the Dutch Wikipedia cannot exist :S
(please tell me I'm on the wrong track here)
-Fruggo
On 7/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe under UK law it is possible to waive moral rights, but under Dutch
law
it isn't. The restrictions those inalienable moral rights place on what you can do with the work aren't any different from the restrictions Dutch (and
other
countries) laws place on the use of the work.
However, the wording of the licenses appears to place usage restrictions upon the works in countries where those laws do not apply.
If this is not the case, I eagerly await Joichi's clarification and explanation, as noted.
If those restrictions are the reason to not accept 3.0, than we shouldn't accept any "free" pictures
from
the Netherlands (and other countries), since the moral rights connected
to
these "free" pictures can never be waived.
You may think you're presenting that as a reductio ad absurdum, but this is actually a serious possibility.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 14/07/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
I do realise the notion of rejecting Dutch pictures seems absurd but might be too realistic (so, no, I didn't mean it as a reductio ad absurdum, well, at least for 90% I didn't). And the most scary thing is that it doesn't just apply to pictures: if we consider 3.0 to be unfree, that means that Dutch copyright law is unfree and incompatible with free licenses, what doesn't just mean that Dutch pictures are unfree but also Dutch texts, which means that the Dutch Wikipedia cannot exist :S (please tell me I'm on the wrong track here)
The answer is that if anyone tried to push it there would hopefully be pressure to change the relevant bits of the laws.
The problem with some variants of the CC licenses is that the wording of them appears to make moral rights apply in countries that don't have such laws. Thus, they're a blatant usage restriction, and the wording in question seems unduly onerous as well.
But if this is not in fact the case I'm sure Joichi will eventually come back to this thread and clarify how the licenses don't mean what they appear to mean.
I'm sure they suit CC's purposes - but CC, lovely as they are, are not Wikimedia and their purposes are not our purposes.
- d.
So here's the explanation from Chatharina Maracke, the head of CCi.
Generally speaking, moral rights have to be addressed in the unported license to assure that this license would be enforceable by law in every jurisdiction, whether moral rights are exist or not. The criticism, that the wording of the moral rights section in the unported license could be read as if the licensee has the obligation "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" in every jurisdiction, even if moral rights are do not exist, is not legally correct.
The important phrase "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" refers to every jurisdiction, whether moral rights exist or not. This means, that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do exist, this whole sentence is dispensable, because the applicable law does not permit anything else, meaning we have to respect moral rights (and in particular the moral right of integrity), meaning the licensee is not allowed to "distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" - whether we like it or not.
In a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the first part of the sentence "or as otherwise permitted by applicable law" explicitly makes an exception to the rest of the sentence "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation". This exception ensures that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the latter part of the sentence will not be applicable: "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" means "except the respective copyright legislation permits every adaptation of the work", which is (only) the case, if moral rights are do not exist and not included in the respective law. The only problem here is the understanding of the wording "as otherwise permitted by applicable law". The right "to distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" will not be explicitly allowed by applicable copyright law, but you need to know, that it is not prohibited, if moral rights are do not exist.
However, I also see the point, that besides being legally correct, CC licenses should be easily to understand. If people don't use CC licenses, because they don't understand them, we would have failed, even if the licenses are "accurate" in view of the law. We need to find the balance between legally well drafted licenses and a simple language. I agree, that the wording of the moral rights section in the "unported" license could probably have been drafted in a simpler way and less confusing so that everyone understands and it does not have to be discussed and explained in lots of E- mails.
As she says in the last paragraph, if we are not able to be understood in the end, we have failed. We'll try to make each of the national licenses more clear. We'll also try to make the relevant wording in the unported license easier to understand when we version up. I just don't think we could fit a version up in the current schedule while we're trying to get the local version 3's out of the door right now.
On Jul 15, 2007, at 4:01 JST, David Gerard wrote:
But if this is not in fact the case I'm sure Joichi will eventually come back to this thread and clarify how the licenses don't mean what they appear to mean.
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On 14/07/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
So here's the explanation from Chatharina Maracke, the head of CCi.
In a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the first part of the sentence "or as otherwise permitted by applicable law" explicitly makes an exception to the rest of the sentence "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation". This exception ensures that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the latter part of the sentence will not be applicable: "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" means "except the respective copyright legislation permits every adaptation of the work", which is (only) the case, if moral rights are do not exist and not included in the respective law. The only problem here is the understanding of the wording "as otherwise permitted by applicable law". The right "to distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" will not be explicitly allowed by applicable copyright law, but you need to know, that it is not prohibited, if moral rights are do not exist.
Yeah. The trouble is that when I read that sentence as conventional English, rather than legal code, it still appears to me to mean that the moral rights restriction exists as a usage restriction.
However, I also see the point, that besides being legally correct, CC licenses should be easily to understand. If people don't use CC licenses, because they don't understand them, we would have failed, even if the licenses are "accurate" in view of the law. We need to find the balance between legally well drafted licenses and a simple language. I agree, that the wording of the moral rights section in the "unported" license could probably have been drafted in a simpler way and less confusing so that everyone understands and it does not have to be discussed and explained in lots of E- mails.
As she says in the last paragraph, if we are not able to be understood in the end, we have failed. We'll try to make each of the national licenses more clear. We'll also try to make the relevant wording in the unported license easier to understand when we version up. I just don't think we could fit a version up in the current schedule while we're trying to get the local version 3's out of the door right now.
I'm not a lawyer - my experience of copyright law is the internet sort and pushing the bounds of fair use when criticising Scientology and so forth ;-) OTOH, I'm probably the audience for the licence.
So if a clarification is feasible, that would be really good, yes!
- d.
On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
The important phrase "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" refers to every jurisdiction, whether moral rights exist or not. This means, that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do exist, this whole sentence is dispensable, because the applicable law does not permit anything else, meaning we have to respect moral rights (and in particular the moral right of integrity), meaning the licensee is not allowed to "distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" - whether we like it or not.
This argument breaks down when you consider those countries where moral rights can be waived.
On Jul 14, 2007, at 12:01 PM, David Gerard wrote:
I'm sure they suit CC's purposes - but CC, lovely as they are, are not Wikimedia and their purposes are not our purposes.
Actually, in this case, our purposes are 100% perfectly aligned. The understanding that many people have about this is flawed.
The CC 3.0 Attribution license is fine. I wish the passage in question were more clearly worded, sure. But there has been absolutely no intention to have moral rights arbitrarily extended into new areas.
The basic concept is... there were concerns that failing to acknowledge moral rights in jurisdictions which have them could possibly invalidate the license. So the intention is to have the license explicitly mention them and indicate that they exist, without adding anything new at all.
--Jimbo
On 7/14/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
I do realise the notion of rejecting Dutch pictures seems absurd but might be too realistic (so, no, I didn't mean it as a reductio ad absurdum, well, at least for 90% I didn't). And the most scary thing is that it doesn't just apply to pictures: if we consider 3.0 to be unfree, that means that Dutch copyright law is unfree and incompatible with free licenses, what doesn't just mean that Dutch pictures are unfree but also Dutch texts, which means that the Dutch Wikipedia cannot exist :S
(please tell me I'm on the wrong track here)
-Fruggo
Well before you get that far you would be needing to show that such contracts (ie ones with zero consideration) are legal under the law of the Netherlands.
Assuming they are we can start to get onto the issues you raised.
Additionally the Netherlands is a member of the EU so should have an equivalent of The Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2006.
Copyright law was not written with the idea of free licenses in mind. Copyright law was not even really writen with people in mind. It is quite hard to aviod breaking at least some aspects of copyright law in day to day life.
Sorry about my silence. I am having a conversation right now with the CC team to make sure I understand this better and don't say something stupid. ;-)
On Jul 15, 2007, at 3:41 JST, David Gerard wrote:
If this is not the case, I eagerly await Joichi's clarification and explanation, as noted.
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On Jul 14, 2007, at 11:41 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 14/07/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe under UK law it is possible to waive moral rights, but under Dutch law it isn't. The restrictions those inalienable moral rights place on what you can do with the work aren't any different from the restrictions Dutch (and other countries) laws place on the use of the work.
However, the wording of the licenses appears to place usage restrictions upon the works in countries where those laws do not apply.
So I can tell you, having conferred with everyone involved, that this is absolutely NOT the intention.
I am on the board of creative commons and thus privy to the discussions. I think there is a clumsy wording here that needs to be clarified for non lawyers, but all the lawyers say the same thing: no additional moral rights in countries where those laws do not apply.
I am working to get a clear statement and clarification on this. We can be annoyed if there is an ambiguity, but rest assured: the intention is 100% pure here, as far as I understand it.
--Jimbo
On 15/07/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
On Jul 14, 2007, at 11:41 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 14/07/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe under UK law it is possible to waive moral rights, but under Dutch law it isn't. The restrictions those inalienable moral rights place on what you can do with the work aren't any different from the restrictions Dutch (and other countries) laws place on the use of the work.
However, the wording of the licenses appears to place usage restrictions upon the works in countries where those laws do not apply.
So I can tell you, having conferred with everyone involved, that this is absolutely NOT the intention.
The intention is not what is under scrutiny here: the contents of the license is.
I am on the board of creative commons and thus privy to the discussions. I think there is a clumsy wording here that needs to be clarified for non lawyers, but all the lawyers say the same thing: no additional moral rights in countries where those laws do not apply.
I guess this counts as a professional opinion that many people have been asking for, however it is likely this will be perceived as an action by Creative Commons (I presume the lawyers are theirs, but I may be wrong) to get people to use the 3.0 license.
I am working to get a clear statement and clarification on this. We can be annoyed if there is an ambiguity, but rest assured: the intention is 100% pure here, as far as I understand it.
Again, it is not the intention being challenged here, it is the license.
--Jimbo
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-UH
On 7/14/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Samuli Lintula samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
BTW, why is it that requiring attribution (an inelianable moral right) is considered free while requiring other inalienable moral rights is unfree?
Because it doesn't really place restictions on what you can do with the work
I believe you are completely mistaken. The way *i* understand it, the CC 3.0 licence simply states clearly in the text of the licence rights that exist and can't be waived in those countries where they exist anyway.
In clear, the licence does not *add* any restriction that is not there in the first place.
Delphine
On 7/14/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe you are completely mistaken. The way *i* understand it, the CC 3.0 licence simply states clearly in the text of the licence rights that exist and can't be waived in those countries where they exist anyway.
In clear, the licence does not *add* any restriction that is not there in the first place.
Delphine
That answer was not directly related to CC 3.0 but to the general principle.
The problem is that it moves the set of law that applies from moral rights law to copyright licensing enforcement law.
On Jul 14, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
I believe you are completely mistaken. The way *i* understand it, the CC 3.0 licence simply states clearly in the text of the licence rights that exist and can't be waived in those countries where they exist anyway.
In clear, the licence does not *add* any restriction that is not there in the first place.
This is correct, but I have great sympathy for those who find it confusing. I am pushing to have some kind of clarification as quickly as possible.
But everyone important assures me that there is NO intention to include moral rights as a part of CC 3.0 attribution.
--Jimbo
Hi folks
Thanks very much for all this feedback. I do not understand the legal part of the discussion. But as a person who tries to get images from third parties non-acceptance of CC-3.0 is just another obstacle.
How shall an average website developer understand why we don't accept 3.0 licenses when CC notes on the 2.5 license that you should use the new (3.9) license for new works? It's hard enough to get a license that is not "for Wikipedia" only.
It sounds like a decision has been made. I uploaded a sample picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazareth_Christ_church_1.jpg
Will anybody fix the license template please?
Regards
Robin
On 7/15/07, Robin Schwab contact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
It sounds like a decision has been made.
I would beg to differ.
I uploaded a sample picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazareth_Christ_church_1.jpg
Will anybody fix the license template please?
Rotem Hofmann does understand that we can and will remove the watermark?
That ticket has also been left open pending this discussion - I chose not to close it until then.
On 15/07/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, Robin Schwab contact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
It sounds like a decision has been made.
I would beg to differ.
I uploaded a sample picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazareth_Christ_church_1.jpg
Will anybody fix the license template please?
Rotem Hofmann does understand that we can and will remove the watermark?
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l